The inexcusable and inhuman attacks on the staff of the French publication Charlie Hebdo have prompted some good discussion about free speech. But is free speech really the issue? George…

The inexcusable and inhuman attacks on the staff of the French publication Charlie Hebdo have prompted some good discussion about free speech. But is free speech really the issue? George Weigel writes what may be the most interesting article on this topic and maintains that the Charlie doesn’t actually fall under the category of satire. Rather its tone is closer to nihilism. The issue is not about rights, but about deeper philosophical considerations that shape our very understanding of the human person. Arguably, the nihilist consideration of the human person makes the question of rights irrelevant.

Weigel writes:

In the world of Charlie Hebdo, sadly, all religious convictions (indeed all serious convictions about moral truth) are, by definition, fanaticism—and thus susceptible to the mockery of the “enlightened.” But that crude caricature of religious belief and moral conviction is false; it’s adolescent, if not downright childish; it inevitably lends itself to the kind of vulgarity that intends to wound, not amuse; and over the long haul, it’s as corrosive of the foundations of a decent society as the demented rage of the jihadists who murdered members of Charlie Hebdo’s staff.

The sophomoric nastiness regularly displayed in Charlie Hebdo most certainly does not constitute any sort of warrant for homicide; the incapacity of some Muslims to live in pluralistic societies and the rage to which those incapacities lead is a grave threat to the West. The question is: What do those two truths have to do with each other?

The entire piece is worth a thoughtful read and a good discussion. Are we in a post-Christian era? Has it created a void that spawns extremism? I will defend the right to free speech, but it’s hard for me to imagine the content of Charlie Hebdo as the product of a living Christian culture, indeed as the product of any culture that is ordered towards life.

The problem with the ad campaign? It offered women choiceS – gasp! – about their pregnancies. It provided a website which clearly states that women have several options including abortion. It also makes clear that the website neither promotes nor refers for abortions. That’s pretty straightforward.

But NPR did the story without contacting Vitae and, apparently, without consulting much of the website. It did however spend quite a bit of time hearing from the public affairs director of the local Planned Parenthood. Their complaint? They don’t like the competition that Vitae represents. Somebody hand them a box of tissues, please. In the meantime, let legitimate organizations get back to doing the legitimate work of trying to reach their audiences.

At the same time, the battle to limit the free speech of pregnancy help centers wages on. Legislation that would have required PHCs to advertise that they don’t provide abortions was defeated in the state legislature earlier this year. So, similar efforts are now expected at the county level, following the same pattern in New York and Maryland. The Baltimore city ordinance was overturned by a district court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional because it limited the right to freedom of speech of the PHCs. (You can read my commentary along with the decision here.) Nevertheless, abortion providers and supporters continue to try and force the same unconstitutional provisions in other parts of the country. One can’t help but wonder if NPR, or at least this particular NPR journalist, is using its broadcasting ability to support these efforts. At the very least, they aren’t offering unbiased and fair journalism.

All the while, Planned Parenthood itself misleads the public about the services it provides. LiveAction just released another expose in which it documents that PP does not provide mammograms even though Cecile Richards, PP CEO, claims that losing their federal funding will impact women for whom they provide mammograms.

The pro-life movement has always argued for transparency beginning with its challenge of the Roe v. Wade decision. It’d be great to see abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, maintain similar transparency.

I’m all for truth in advertising, but it should go both ways. After all Planned Parenthood isn’t known for promoting and facilitating parenthood…

I recently wrote about freedom of speech and the pro-life movement. It seems to me that we have a substantial threat to our democracy when pro-lifers are not allowed to…

Tip - pregnancy resource centers don't sell these.

I recently wrote about freedom of speech and the pro-life movement. It seems to me that we have a substantial threat to our democracy when pro-lifers are not allowed to speak about their beliefs, when a rational conversation about a controversial topic won’t be heard.

Well, it turns out that freedom of speech is at issue in another pro-life sector. Today the US District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore’s ordinance requiring pregnancy resource centers to list the services that they don’t provide, namely abortion, violates the right to freedom of speech of PRCs. As such, the Court determined that the ordinance is unenforceable.

Here’s a tip: PRCs don’t change your oil, do your dry cleaning, or have a slurpee machine either. But they will support you in your pregnancy. When you go to Starbucks, you can get a coffee or some other food treat; but don’t expect them to take that nasty mole off your back even if the Starbucks sign doesn’t say that it won’t take the mole off your back. And, oh, Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mani/pedis, or parenthood for that matter.